Minimum Wages Payable To Skilled Workman To Be Adopted For Quantifying Notional Loss Of Earnings Of Child: SC Enhances Motor Accident Compensation

The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal claiming that the compensation determined by the High Court was still on the lower side. 

The bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “…the High Court adopted the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour, i.e., ₹169 per day, but there is no justification for the same as the appellant was a school-going child at the time of her accident. The minimum wages payable to a skilled workman, as per the Notification dated 01.03.2013 of the Government of Assam, stood at ₹175 per day, which is more acceptable.”

Brief Facts-

In an accident, a young girl under twelve suffered 75% permanent disability when a Max Pick-Up Van hit the vehicle she was in with her father. Her father filed a claim with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) against the van's insurer which initially awarded ₹5.59L in compensation, with interest. Dissatisfied, the family appealed, and the Gauhati High Court later increased the compensation to ₹18.97L. The High Court recognized her full disability at 75%, calculated her future loss of earnings based on minimum wages, and added ₹3 lakh each for pain and loss of marriage prospects. Medical expenses were retained as per bills submitted, and interest remained unchanged. The Appellant filed the present appeal as it found that the compensation awarded was on the lower side.

The Court relied on a Supreme Court decision in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others and observed, “In that case, the child had suffered 90% permanent disability due to the accident. The argument before this Court was that as the child was just twelve years of age, the notional income of ₹15,000/- per annum should be adopted. However, this Court rejected this argument and adopted the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman for quantifying the notional loss of earnings of the child.”

In the present case, the Court also considered attendant charges as the Appellant would be helpless without assistance.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal.